First bad thing: this is another "one-off" decision by the conservative wing of the Supreme Court to get a result that following precedent would have denied them. Just like Bush v. Gore, it is an on-the-fly decision tailored to get the result they want. The Hobby Lobby case will not apply to all corporations, and (according to the judges) not even all health care options. Just 16 different kinds of contraception for women who happen to work for "closely-held" corporations.
And yes, it's all of them. One of the arguments after the decision was that the ruling only applied to the four kinds of contraception that Hobby Lobby supporters called "abortifacents". Their use of the term, unlike actual science, is more of a pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo catch-all word wrapped up in the Shroud of Turin. It has less to do with worrying about an egg smaller than the point of a needle and more about their need to go all Helen Lovejoy:
Yes, won't somebody think of the children? Because with decisions like this, our children are going to grow up in a very fucked up society.
Second bad thing: "Closely-held" corporations are a lot more prevalent than you think. According to this piece in the Wall Street Journal, up to 90% of American companies qualify as "closely-held".
The Internal Revenue Service defines a closely held company as a corporation that has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock directly or indirectly owned by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year. It also cannot be a personal-service corporation.
Massive corporations like Mars Inc. and Cargill Inc. actually qualify as "closely-held" companies. Those two companies alone employ over 200,000 people.
Now, will all these companies follow Hobby Lobby and discriminate against women and their health-care choices? Likely not. Least of which because it makes your company look ignorant, backwards and ridiculous.
But now there is a legal stamp of approval to do something like this. It creates a constant sense of concern for women because now they could lose a part of their health care.
Third bad thing: There is no guarantee this stops here. Remember the first bad thing about conservative court members trying to limit this religious exemption? There is no guarantee that will happen. Justice Ginsberg, in a stinging dissent, made it clear that the Court had entered some very dangerous territory.
Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
And it has. Now that the Court established that a corporation can have religious beliefs, trying to tell a closely-held corporation run by Jehovah's Witnesses that they have to cover transfusions is going to be a rough sell. And in the end, I don't see how the Court could make them do it because of the Establishment Clause.
In short, because Alito, Scalia and the other three are scared of vaginas, we're going to have a Constitutional crisis sometime in the next 10 years or so over this topic. Thanks a lot, guys.
But really, I just want to know one thing...
Why am I subsidizing boner pills?
Like this guy needs more free Viagra...
There is all this bullshit and faux concern over covering women's contraception. This contraception helps women to decide when and where, if at all, they'll have children. Considering the fact that having a child is about the biggest, most life-altering thing someone can do, maybe it makes some god-damn sense to ensure women can have some control over when that happens.
And it does other things too. The Pill (and any hormone-based contraceptive for that matter) can reduce the risk of some types of cancer. It can make PMS and periods more tolerable. It helps to treat endometriosis, a condition that can lead to permanent infertility. According to a Guttmacher Institute study, up to 1/3 of women that use the Pill do so for non-pregnancy reasons.
But to hear conservatives bloviate and ramble and spew on this topic, subsidizing contraception for women is just about paying for them to be loose.
So what about the god-damn boner pills, you mouth-breathing hypocrites??? What the fuck is Viagra or Cialis good for besides erections and fucking?? It is a pill literally designed to help men have sex. It does nothing else. It sure as fuck doesn't reduce cancer risks or prevent permanent infertility. But it's awesome at helping dudes get hard-ons and knock up women who can't afford to get contraception anymore.
And what does Dr. Laura or Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative blowhole have to say about that??? (skip to :24)
Granted, Limbaugh has nothing to say about boner pills because the fat fraud was caught going to the Dominican Republic with enough Viagra to keep the porn industry humming along for a year. But the rest of the conservative noise machine has no excuse. To them, women being responsible about sex is a thing of shame and moral collapse. But making sure every guy has a hard-on is a damned national imperative.
So if we're going to start micro-manging health plans based on religious preference or moral indignation or what-have-you, I'd like my health provider to stop using MY premiums to fund old man boner pills. Because we need more women being able to make responsible choices and less guys trying to knock them up.
0 comments:
Post a Comment